ABSTRACT
Not everyone comes to the kitchen equally equipped and, as such, does not have the same opportunities for gaining cooking skills, resulting in different taste standards and less healthy food intake. This paper aimed to cluster home cooks based on their ‘cooking capital', consisting of their incorporated capital (self-reported cooking skills, attitudes, behaviors) and objectivized capital (access to cooking means), and investigate the differences in food-related preferences and behaviors. In total, 19.378 home cooks, older than 26 and living in one of the 38 participating countries, completed an online survey. Two-step clustering was used to create clusters that were then compared on recipe use, bread baking at home, and food intake, both before and during COVID-19. Three segments emerged: low-priority cooks (lowest cooking capital), everyday cooks (middle bracket), and hobby chefs (highest cooking capital). Clusters differed significantly regarding recipe sources, valued recipe aspects, and food intake. Hobby chefs appraised high-capital aspects more (taste, healthiness, sustainability) and reported overall healthier diets. Practical elements (ease, preparation time) were valued highest by low-priority and everyday cooks. During COVID-19, all segments used all recipe sources less frequently;practical ingredient-related variables, tastiness, innovativeness, and health increased in importance for all. Some gaps between clusters on practical and high-capital recipe preferences grew smaller during the pandemic. Implications are made for a segmented communication approach adapted to each cluster of home cooks rather than focusing on upper classes with higher levels of cooking capital. © 2023 Elsevier B.V.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Solid cancer is an independent prognostic factor for poor outcome with COVID-19. As guidelines for patient management in that setting depend on retrospective efforts, we here present the first analyses of a nationwide database of patients with cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 in Belgium, with a focus on changes in anticancer treatment plans at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Nineteen Belgian hospitals identified all patients with a history of solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Demographic, cancer-specific and COVID-specific data were pseudonymously entered into a central Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO)-COVID database. The association between survival and primary cancer type was analyzed through multivariate multinomial logistic regression. Group comparisons for categorical variables were carried out through a Chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 928 patients were registered in the database; most of them were aged ≥70 years (61.0%) and with poor performance scores [57.2% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) ≥2]. Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was 19.8%. In multivariate analysis, a trend was seen for higher mortality in patients with lung cancer (27.6% versus 20.8%, P = 0.062) and lower mortality for patients with breast cancer (13.0% versus 23.3%, P = 0.052) compared with other tumour types. Non-curative treatment was associated with higher 30-day COVID-related mortality rates compared with curative or no active treatment (25.8% versus 14.3% versus 21.9%, respectively, P < 0.001). In 33% of patients under active treatment, the therapeutic plan was changed due to COVID-19 diagnosis, most frequently involving delays/interruptions in systemic treatments (18.6%). Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was not significantly different between patients with and without treatment modifications (21.4% versus 20.5%). CONCLUSION: Interruption in anticancer treatments at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with a reduction in COVID-related mortality in our cohort of patients with solid cancer, highlighting that treatment continuation should be strived for, especially in the curative setting.